Reputation
4,493
Next tag badge:
276/400 score
43/80 answers
Badges
12 40
Impact
~377k people reached

Feb
26
comment Why is this NOT joseki?
I thought the whole idea behind joseki was that they've been studied and considered to be the best option at that point. If a different move for a given position provided a better "return on investment" wouldn't it be the joseki move instead?
Feb
19
comment Does the longest road need to have settlements/cities at endpoints?
Key to this is the definition of an intersection. It's the intersection of the hex pieces, not the intersection of the road with something else.
Feb
19
comment Is 5 a maximum number of buildings in Stone Age?
That paragraph reads something like "This is the authoritative way to do it. Actually, **** it, just put them wherever. I'm not a cop."
Feb
6
comment When does Chief of the Edge die?
How does the Chief die? Is it as a result of combat damage? Or are you doing something like Lightning Strike to kill it during your Declare Blockers step? Also is First Strike involved in any way?
Jan
30
comment Strategy for Yahtzee
My first thought was the game that is superior to Yahtzee in exactly four hundred billion different ways, Kizmet.
Jan
29
comment Am I obligated to identify cards owned by an opponent?
I don't think that's the reason: I think it's just the persona he uses to answer questions. The name of the blog is even "Snarkham Asylum".
Jan
28
comment Am I obligated to identify cards owned by an opponent?
No, I'm saying that even though he has to shuffle them, he still must make the ownership of the cards identifyable regardless of the shuffle. If I took ten of your cards and ten of my cards and shuffled them together, I would need to be able to say which ten were mine and which ten were yours at all times. Or rather, at all "times" (individual game states.) In this case it's not ten and ten, it's one and one. They still get "shuffled" (although keen players may agree to skip the useless "shuffle" as a shortcut.)
Jan
28
comment Am I obligated to identify cards owned by an opponent?
He doesn't need to. He knows which card came from the library (and that gets some kind of denotation as being his) and which card came from the battlefield (which he knows is the Infiltrator belonging to his opponent).
Jan
28
comment Am I obligated to identify cards owned by an opponent?
@GendoIkari But it is true, because all players have an obligation to maintain that information at all "times". It might get lost to some players in the midst of a a shuffle, but as soon as that shuffle is over, he had better have a way to differentiate them or he is committing a violation exactly the same as if he failed to reveal his life total.
Jan
28
comment Am I obligated to identify cards owned by an opponent?
@Rainbolt yes, I definitely do: "object owner" falls in the same category as tapped permanent, controller, and attached aura, all of which are explicitly listed as free information. I agree that this is an unusual case, but the evidence is clearly pointing toward the conclusions in the answer.
Jan
28
comment Am I obligated to identify cards owned by an opponent?
Listed under free information is The physical status (tapped/flipped/unattached/phased) and current zone of any object. Compare this to the definition of "Characteristics", An object’s characteristics are name, mana cost, color, color indicator, card type, subtype, supertype, rules text, abilities, power, toughness, loyalty, hand modifier, and life modifier. (...) Any other information about an object isn’t a characteristic. For example, characteristics don’t include whether a permanent is tapped, a spell’s target, an object’s owner or controller, what an Aura enchants, and so on.
Jan
28
comment Am I obligated to identify cards owned by an opponent?
Of course they wouldn't: 716.1: The rules for taking shortcuts are largely unformalized. As long as each player in the game understands the intent of each other player, any shortcut system they use is acceptable. Both players know the outcome of shuffling a 0 or 1 card deck, or a pile of 2 distinguishable cards, and therefore would have no problem "skipping the shuffle". The game doesn't skip the shuffle though, and that's the only thing we care about.
Jan
28
comment Am I obligated to identify cards owned by an opponent?
@Jefromi If what you say is true, then no player could shuffle a 1 or 0 card deck, but clearly we know they can. Regardless, it still works: no player knows their order during the shuffling process - immediately after the shuffling process, however, all public information just as public as it was before.
Jan
28
comment Am I obligated to identify cards owned by an opponent?
Considering he only talked about what cards you own when leaving the game as opposed to identifying to your opponent which cards are his during the game, I don't believe he did. He treated the question as though it was obvious when it is not necessarily obvious given the context of the question.
Jan
28
comment Am I obligated to identify cards owned by an opponent?
@Rainbolt It is explicitly stated in the Fate Reforged FAQ "A card's owner is public information at all times." It is quoted and sourced in the OP.
Jan
27
comment Am I obligated to identify cards owned by an opponent?
However, I'm stuck wondering if, even though ownership of the card is known at all times, you may choose to use the manifest 'tokens' (i know, not actual tokens) instead of the actual card - in this case, would you be forced to reveal the ownership of the card to which the manifest 'token' belongs to.
Jan
27
comment Am I obligated to identify cards owned by an opponent?
@Rainbolt by that same logic, you could never ask your opponent for number of cards in hand or their life total, because if you were keeping track of all in game decisions, you would never need to ask, right? But we know that isn't the case: you have to give your life total or card count if someone asks. This would be no different.
Jan
27
comment Am I obligated to identify cards owned by an opponent?
I don't think Tabak truly grasped your plight as it relates to Jeskai Infiltrator.
Jan
27
comment Am I obligated to identify cards owned by an opponent?
Oh. This is what happens when your wife schedules a cruise (a treasure cruise?) for the weekend of a prerelease! I see now the true dilemma - the whole point of the ability is to obscure which one is the infiltrator and which one is the random card off the top. Revealing ownership screws that right up.
Jan
27
comment Am I obligated to identify cards owned by an opponent?
While I can't find that the ownership itself is a property you're obligated to notify, the second question is answered by this answer: there must be some sort of way of clearly and effectively conveying which face-down spell or permanent is attached to which event, whether it's the order, or a post-it, or counters/dice. Assuming Nathan isn't limited in his ability to remember or record the actions, rule 707.6 mandates that some system be established to correlate the various actions to their resulting face down spells or permanents.